Messrs. SHIFA MEDICOS vs WAFAQI MOHTASIB (OMBUDSMAN) and others

This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, which declined to issue a writ on the ground that an adequate alternative remedy was available. The core legal question concerned the availability of discretionary constitutional relief when an alternative statutory remedy exists. The Supreme Court evaluated the High Court's reliance on established precedent and its observation that an adequate remedy was provided under the relevant statutory framework. The court held that no exception could be taken to the impugned order of the High Court where discretionary relief was properly declined. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision, finding no merits in the petition. The key principle laid down is that discretionary constitutional writs will generally be refused by the courts when an adequate alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party under the governing law.